"Mein Kampf" - back in Germany!

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by icenine

Just because you say there was a coup in 1930s Germany does not mean that there was one. I could say World War I ended in 1920...that does not make it true. When did I excuse political violence by the way.

What is your motivation for implying Hitler came to power during a coup when in fact he was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg, legal under Weimar, after winning a plurality of the German vote in an election?

You cannot change historical facts to fit whatever conceit you have about a particular issue, such as the election of Hitler. A plurality of votes is not a coup.

Ahem. This questioning of my motives is uncalled-for. My 'motivation' is to deny the Nazi's the status of a legitimate 'elected' government in the face of the illegitimate means they employed to gain power. The fruit of the poisoned tree is poison.

And I haven't arrived at my position without thought or in ignorance. If you want a catalog of facts to back up my position, that is, a list of Nazi terroristc acts and atrocities, say so and in a little while, I will provide.

(BTW, sorry you didn't get it. I indicated, I thought clearly, in my previous post that you didn't actually excuse political violence. My point was to compare the idea that you did to your own suggestion that I denied Hitler's popularity. I say both are equally bogus, see?)

[icenine]

For your revisionism to seem valid one would have to believe that unmolested the Social Democrats and the Communists would have defeated Hitler in the 1930s as the economic situation declined....a real stretch considering the huge vote he got in 1932. Plus those two factions would hardly work with each other.

But this is a bullshit discussion; what point are your trying to make by saying it was a coup. Devil's advocate: let us say it was a coup....so what does that mean? How is that significant? What does it change?

Of course it was not a coup unless you are a revisionist. Any legitimate historical works exist in the mainstream of historiography call his elevation to the Chancellorship a coup?

point me to one.

[icenine]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Ahem. This questioning of my motives is uncalled-for. My 'motivation' is to deny the Nazi's the status of a legitimate 'elected' government in the face of the illegitimate means they employed to gain power. The fruit of the poisoned tree is poison.

And I haven't arrived at my position without thought or in ignorance. If you want a catalog of facts to back up my position, that is, a list of Nazi terroristc acts and atrocities, say so and in a little while, I will provide.

(BTW, sorry you didn't get it. I indicated, I thought clearly, in my previous post that you didn't actually excuse political violence. My point was to compare the idea that you did to your own suggestion that I denied Hitler's popularity. I say both are equally bogus, see?)

Point me to legitimate histories that say the elections were not legitimate or were out and out faked. The conventional historiography is that they were legitimate results. You can't just say oh there was violence and street fights and thus the elections did not count.

You can never tell me the Nazi party was not elected to power. You seem to be suggesting that Germany, a country known for its civilization, was above electing Hitler to office. Wrong.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by icenine

The millions of people who voted for Hitler maybe approved of the violence his party was committing against the So************************ts/Communists/etc?

The idea that the so************************ts/communists were the true majority in the country is not plausible. I think Hitler was given a chance despite his tactics. He maybe have been rabble rousing but he found enough voters to put him into office.

We can say some Nazi voters approved of violence against the left, and some didn't. But without data, we can't assume how many approved....

I don't recall claiming that soçialists/communists were the majority. My claim is simply that the electoral process does not confer legitimacy on the Nazi regime, given everything they did. I say among other things that they stuffed the Reichstag with storm troopers and used the threat of Dachau (which by then existed) or political murder (which was rife, uninvestigated, and unpunished) to insure passage of the Enabling Act.

That there were millions of tru-believer nazi assholes in Germany in 1933 is not disputed. But even if the majority* in a country were to 'knowingly and rationally' support a change of regime, it still is not necessarily a 'democratic' change. It depends on how the thing is done. I argue that if the means are as compromised as those employed by the Nazis, it is not democratic. And I think 'coup' is a fair description of such a process, even if the process is more drawn-out, and more papered-over with 'legality,' than is typical of coups.


* I'm not saying the Nazis had a majority. They never got one until after they outlawed all the other parties.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by icenine

For your revisionism to seem valid one would have to believe that unmolested the Social Democrats and the Communists would have defeated Hitler in the 1930s as the economic situation declined....a real stretch considering the huge vote he got in 1932. Plus those two factions would hardly work with each other.

But this is a bullshit discussion; what point are your trying to make by saying it was a coup. Devil's advocate: let us say it was a coup....so what does that mean? How is that significant? What does it change?

Of course it was not a coup unless you are a revisionist. Any legitimate historical works exist in the mainstream of historiography call his elevation to the Chancellorship a coup?

point me to one.

Revisionism? Bullshit? Why such a strong reaction, why the negative labels? If I'm wrong, i'm wrong. Don't know why it bugs you so much.

It's like if an innocent man was accused of a murder, and corrupt police fake up evidence, and beat up his alabi witness so he won't appear. If the jury then votes to convict, would you say they guy was convicted in a fair and legitimate trial?

The reason to deny that the Nazi ascent was 'legitimate' is to make clear that 1) democracy can be subverted, democratic forms are not enough, and
2) if bad means are used, the result is not legitimate.

It's important to understand this, I think. Otherwise, the reputation of democracy takes an underserved hit when people point to the supposed election of the evil Nazis. Further, we may not be as on guard as we should be against efforts of various sorts to subvert the democratic process.

[donquixote99]

BTW, I'm not making an argument from authority. No argument is true because someone else says it, or false because I say it. 'Coup' is my word, based on my own knowledge and reasoning. If the reasons I offer don't persuade you, feel free to disagree. But don't tell me I'm not qualified to put forward my own opinion, and don't scoff because it is my opinion. Have better reasons to scoff than that.

[icenine]

By denying that the election of Hitler was legitimate, under the current system at the time, is to sort of to say well Germany (or Germans) were not really responsible for Nazis coming to power, or starting World War II, or the Holocaust. By using the term coup you are saying Germany was somehow "stolen" by the National So************************ts. In effect it is like trying to mitigate a cancer.
A coup implies an illegal seizure of power. Street battles, fights with Communists, Horst Wessel, the Reichstag, the SA yes those were agents of Nazi intimidation. However, the elections are viewed as legitimately giving the Nazis a plurality in the legislature. Remember Hitler himself vowed to use legitimate elections to gain power after the failed coup in 1923 in Munich.

Granted the Weimar Constitution and Hindenburg's age gave him his complete dominance AFTER he was elected and given the Chancellorship. Hitler was evil but he used democracy to destroy it, and I think millions of Germans followed him freely.
That is my point...no coup. An election.

The concentration camps started almost immediately, as did The Enabling Acts. Like all politicians I am sure Hitler had a strong base of supporters, and his alliance with the military and industry, coupled with rising war preparations and the employment that went along with it, made him more popular as the depression ended.

Saying the Nazis did not use the German electoral system to gain power is historically wrong. In my study of history the only coup attempt discussed in connection with Hitler is the Putsch of 1923. The weakness of the system, wherein Hindenburg could rule by decree and select a Chancellor, was the key that Hitler was going after when he ran for office.

[icenine]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

BTW, I'm not making an argument from authority. No argument is true because someone else says it, or false because I say it. 'Coup' is my word, based on my own knowledge and reasoning. If the reasons I offer don't persuade you, feel free to disagree. But don't tell me I'm not qualified to put forward my own opinion, and don't scoff because it is my opinion. Have better reasons to scoff than that.

As Brother Al would say you have a right to your opinion, but not to the facts.
I am a failed historian who ended up as an x-ray tech but I get pissed off about certain things. Sorry if this breach becomes irrevocable. I mean coup or election the outcome was the same. Two mortal enemies, the USA and USSR, had to come in and destroy the Nazi regime, which might have survived had the leader not invaded the latter nation.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by icenine

As Brother Al would say you have a right to your opinion, but not to the facts.
I am a failed historian who ended up as an x-ray tech but I get pissed off about certain things. Sorry if this breach becomes irrevocable. I mean coup or election the outcome was the same. Two mortal enemies, the USA and USSR, had to come in and destroy the Nazi regime, which might have survived had the leader not invaded the latter nation.

I've always heard the opinions/facts thing attributed to Daniel Moynihan, though I wouldn't doubt he got it in turn from an earlier source.

I don't get why a 'breach' at all. I'm OK with you not agreeing with me, on a matter, basically, of opinion. The real question here is the 'legitimacy' of the Nazi regime, a legitimacy that was at best a passing thing. That is, I trust we both agree that Hitler transformed the Reich into a totalitarian tyranny about as fast as he could. Anyway, 'legitimacy' is not a very black and white sort of question. We can agree on the same sets of facts, but differ on what they mean, in a case like this. So lecturing me about what facts I'm entitled to isn't quite on, i wouldn't say.

What are you pissed off about, exactly?

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by icenine

By denying that the election of Hitler was legitimate, under the current system at the time, is to sort of to say well Germany (or Germans) were not really responsible for Nazis coming to power, or starting World War II, or the Holocaust. By using the term coup you are saying Germany was somehow "stolen" by the National So************************ts. In effect it is like trying to mitigate a cancer.
A coup implies an illegal seizure of power. Street battles, fights with Communists, Horst Wessel, the Reichstag, the SA yes those were agents of Nazi intimidation. However, the elections are viewed as legitimately giving the Nazis a plurality in the legislature. Remember Hitler himself vowed to use legitimate elections to gain power after the failed coup in 1923 in Munich.

Granted the Weimar Constitution and Hindenburg's age gave him his complete dominance AFTER he was elected and given the Chancellorship. Hitler was evil but he used democracy to destroy it, and I think millions of Germans followed him freely.
That is my point...no coup. An election.

The concentration camps started almost immediately, as did The Enabling Acts. Like all politicians I am sure Hitler had a strong base of supporters, and his alliance with the military and industry, coupled with rising war preparations and the employment that went along with it, made him more popular as the depression ended.

Saying the Nazis did not use the German electoral system to gain power is historically wrong. In my study of history the only coup attempt discussed in connection with Hitler is the Putsch of 1923. The weakness of the system, wherein Hindenburg could rule by decree and select a Chancellor, was the key that Hitler was going after when he ran for office.

If there's anything I would never use as evidence for anything, it's what Hitler 'vowed.'

There is plenty of blame to go around for all the crimes and brutalities of the WWII time. But yes, in a sense I think the Nazi's 'stole,' Germany. Many were complicit, many were enthusiastically on-board, at least for a time. Many others died opposing the Nazis. You agree that it was at most a plurality that were true-believer Nazis, do you not?

Is the idea that 'Germany' may not be exactly 'to blame' the problem here? I'd say' Germany' never could be 'to blame.' Huge collective nouns like 'Germany' are way too abstract to be moral actors.